When I say that many modern-day Muslims are not following Islam, I say so
because Islam’s message is extremely tolerant. I’ll give you two
examples. At the time of the prophet, Allah’s mercy be on him, there
were some hypocrites who would come to his gatherings and would teasingly
say ‘ra‘ina’ by twisting their tongue so that instead of its
customary meanings (i.e. may I beg your pardon) it should mean “O our
shepherd”. The Qur’an asked the believers to abandon that word
altogether and use another, synonymous word ‘unzurna’ in case they
want to ask the prophet to repeat what he was saying. (2:104) Had the
message of Islam been violent, the Qur’an should have asked such people
to be taken to task immediately.

Dear scholar friends Mr. Ghamidi and Dr. Zaheer.

This time I delayed my response because you had complained that I
respond too quick and this does does not allow the readers to absorb what
you said properly. I am sure this time they have absorbed everything you
said fully since your response has been published nearly a week ago here..

I
must admit that you have a very unorthodox way of defining tolerance.
Muhammad could not tolerate anyone criticizing him and ordered the
execution of those who, many years earlier, had ridiculed him. He even had
zero tolerance for those who wanted to believe in their own faiths and did
not want to submit to his unsubstantiated claims. I am at lost trying to
understand your definition of tolerance. This story you are telling us is
not the sign of Muhammad’s tolerance but an indication of his paranoia
and intolerance. Muhammad was a narcissist and as such he was insecure of
himself and suspicious of everyone. So he prohibited people saying an
Arabic word because he suspected, they were saying something different to
mock him, and you think just because he did not “took to task
immediately” i.e. did not order their execution, he was a tolerant man?
Is this your standard for tolerance? No wonder you call yourself tolerant
and moderate when you repeatedly have stated that anyone who does not
believe in Islam or anyone who leaves it does not deserver to live in this
world and must be put to death. The irony is that Muslims are the most
intolerant people on the face of the planet and despite that they are
absolutely sure to be very tolerant.

My erudite friends, allow me to explain the concept of tolerance as I, and
the rest of non-Muslim portion of humanity understand it. Tolerance means
you are fair, objective, and permissive toward those whose opinions and
religion differ from yours. It means that you treat others with the same
respect and consideration that you would like to be treated yourself. How
can you be tolerant when you say those who reject Islam do not deserve to
live in this world anymore? How would you like to be put to death because
of your faith? What would you say to a person who believes you don’t
deserve living in this world because your religion is different from his?
Would you call such a person tolerant? If not, then you are not tolerant
and neither was your prophet.

Likewise,
there were others who used to make fun of Islam in their gatherings during
the time of the prophet. The Qur’an asked the believers to leave their
company when people were ridiculing their religion and to rejoin them when
they engaged in some other discussion. (6:68-69; 5:57-58) Again, going by
the impression you are creating about Islam, such people should have been
asked by the Qur’an to be killed or at least inflicted with exemplary
punishment.

The
Sura 6 is a Meccan Sura. When Muhammad said these things, he was weak and
when one is weak one can’t be intolerant. You can be intolerant only
when you are strong. When Muhammad went to Medina
and became strong he became very intolerant. Sura Maida is Medinan and
there is nothing tolerant in the verses 5.57-58 you quoted. Here Muhammad
is saying “take
not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery
or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or
among those who reject Faith”.How
do you interpret this as a tolerant verse? If you find someone urging
others NOT to take Muslims as friends and allies because they ridicule
trinity, would you say that this person is a tolerant person?

Muhammad
was not tolerant. He remembered those who ridiculed him and years later,
when he came back to Mecca he sought them and took his revenge despite
having promised that if the Meccans surrender with no fight he would spare
their lives.

The
Qur'an should be read in its context. The so-called tolerant verses of the
Qur'an are all Meccan verses while the Medinan verses are violent and
intolerant.The following are
examples of the kind of verses that Muhammad wrote in
Mecca
.

Be patient with what they say, and part
from them courteously. (Q.73:10)

To you be your religion, and to me my
religion. (Q. 109:6)

Therefore be patient with what they say,
and celebrate (constantly) the praises of your Lord. (Q.20:103)

Speak good to men. (Q.2:83)

We well know what the infidels say: but
you are not to compel them. (Q.50:45)

Hold to forgiveness; command what is right;
But turn away from the ignorant. (Q.7:119)

Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning.
(Q.15:85)

Tell those who believe, to forgive those
who do not look forward to the Days of Allâh. (Q.45:14)

Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
and the Christians - any who believe in Allâh and the Last Day, and
work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them
shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Q.2:62)

And do not dispute with the followers of
the Book except by what is best. (Q.29:46)

Now
let us compare them to those written later in
Medina
when Muhammad became powerful.

Oh you who believe! Murder those of the
disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the
unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips
off. (Q.8:12)

Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it
shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85)

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
(Q.9:5)

Kill them wherever you find them, and drive
them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191)

Fight them on until there is no more
dissention and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193)

Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by
your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14)

Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after
you had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others
amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66)

You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikűn
(unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm
(the grand mosque at
Mecca
) after this year. (Q.9:28)

Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and
the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the
religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being
inferior. (Q.9:29)

There
is a big difference between the Meccan and the Medinan verses. We see that
Muhammad is transformed from a preacher to a despot and when he had the
power, he did not have to play the “nice guy” and started showing his
real face unmasked.
And it was ugly. Very ugly.

As
for the battles with non-believers and the later possibility of killings
of some people, I have mentioned it several times that such events
happened either when battles were forced upon Muslims or when at the
culmination of the prophetic mission God inflicted his punishment on the
intransigent disbelievers as had always been His way in the case of all
earlier messengers like Noah, God’s mercy be on him.

As
for your first alibi, at no time the non-Muslims had imposed any war or
Muslims. All the wars and hostilities were initiated by Muhammad and his
followers just as the Muslims today are the initiators of virtually all
hostilities with others.

As
for your second alibi, the fables of the Bible are just that – fables.
You yourself do not believe in the Bible and at anytime it contradicts
your faith you disregard that book, except when you want to justify the
evil deeds of your prophet. Furthermore the so-called punishments of
God are acts of nature. The biblical prophets had nothing to do with
hurricanes, floods, earthquake, etc. Whether these phenomena are ordered
by God intentionally to kill people indiscriminately or not is another
story. I already talked about that in my previous responses. Obviously you
did not read what I wrote. Let us assume these natural calamities are sent
to men deliberately by a malicious and vengeful god. Okay, we have no
control over what this god does. All we can do is get away from the danger
and abort his malicious attacks on us. Thanks to the science it is now
easier to predict when these calamities are going to hit and seek safety.
So as you see, we humans are gradually making this old guy helpless and
toothless. However, my problem is when a human assumes the role of God and
starts massacring innocent people. This is something we must not tolerate.
What right did Muhammad have to do that? Your justification of
Muhammad’s killings is no different from that of Hitler who wrote:

Hence
today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting
for the work of the Lord.

Anyone
can claim to be sent by God doing the Lord’s work to justify his crimes
with divine authority. Playing God is the wet dream of the narcissist. In
Uganda
, a mad man, Joseph Kony calls himself messenger of God. He is the founder
of Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). He kidnaps children and transforms them
into killing machines, much like what Muhammad did. He takes them
back to their villages and orders them to kill their parents with machete,
to prove their faith. If they refuse he massacres the entire family. Just
like your psychopath prophet this mad man also has divine justification
for his crimes. Muhammad, like Knoi and Hitler was sick in the head.

What
about you Dr. Zaheer and Mr. Ghamidi? How can you, who are sane and
intelligent people believe in a monster like Muhammad and justify his
crimes? If you believe in God aren’t you afraid to stand if front of him
one day and respond for your belief in an evil man like Muhammad? How can
you cover your shame when he asks you, did you think I am so stupid to
send a criminal as a prophet? Didn't you think that by taking a pervert
sadist like Muhammad as my messenger you were committing blasphemy? The
followers of Kony are children. They are brought up by this monster and
murder is the only life they know. What are your excuses? Even though you,
like all other Muslims, have been brainwashed since childhood, you are now
adults and quite intelligent. You have no excuses for following a
psychopath mass murderer.

As
to the question why you can’t see the clear communication that took
place during the time when the punishments were inflicted, the answer is
that you are not living in the times of a messenger. Had you been there at
the time of any of the messengers, you would have received the message
quite as clearly and would have either believed or perished (or lived a
life of subjugation). For all the other times, it’s a matter for the
people to decide on the basis of their own understanding and the decision
about them would be taken on the Day of judgment by the All-Knowing God
whether the message was convincingly communicated to them or not, and if
it was, whether their response was acceptable or not.

I
already answered this. You don’t seem to read what I write or pay much
attention and yet you accuse me of not pondering upon what you say and
respond quickly, despite the fact that I respond to every paragraph you
write. What you say is not news to me. These were the same fallacies I
used to believe for years. I thought a lot about them 13 years ago and now
I have the answer. I do not have to solve a problem that is already
solved. However, you have no clue about my side of the story and why I say
Muhammad was an imposter and instead of reading my arguments and try to
refute them, you simply avoid reading them. As the result you keep
repeating the same things in each message.

Even
if the prophethood of Muhammad was obvious to those around him, as you
say, it is not obvious to us. The truth of his claim is not clear to me
and despite asking you several times to give us one evidence that he was a
prophet of God, you have not done it yet. You have not done it because you
can’t and all you can say is that those who saw him were convinced. How
do you know that? Maybe many of them were not convinced but afraid to
speak out or leave him. This kind of response does not satisfy me. I
dismiss it as fallacy. This fallacy that is so close to Muslims' hearts
and they use it often is called argumentum ad veracundiam. Those
who followed Jim Jones also saw the evidence that he was a great Messiah.
They were so convinced that when Jones told them drink poison and die,
they did it happily. Also those who believed in David Koresh, Charles
Manson or Shoko Asahara were convinced. Like Muslims they went around
killing innocent people. Is their faith enough proof for you and I? Each
person has to see the proof for himself. You claimed that you have such
proof and that your reversion to Islam was logical and not emotional. So
where is that proof? Now that I am asking you to show that proof, you
renege and talk about everything else but the proofs. You trust the intelligence
of some Arabs who lived 1400 years ago and think if Islam was good for
them, it is good for you too. What about others who did not see such
evidence in Muhammad and did not believe in him despite the fact that they
knew him since childhood? Why should I believe that Abul Hakam, Abu Lahab,
Abu Sufyan and Nadr ibn Harith were less intelligent than the slaves Aba
Dar, Bilal, the violent and bigot Omar and the butcher Ali?

You
are engaging in fallacy after fallacy. It is not logical to put your faith
on the understanding of a bunch of Arabs of the 7th century who engaged in
highway robbery and rape. You must see the proof for yourself. You claimed
to have seen it but now you are saying something else and are shying away
from giving that proof. If you saw the proof show it to us.

When
Galileo
claimed that the Earth is
rotating around the Sun, when Darwin presented his theory of evolution, or
when Einstein stipulated that 90% of the mass of the universe
is made of dark matter, these were theories. But because they were true,
the passage of time revealed their truth. This is the characteristic of
truth. Truth has a tendency to self-manifest. And you are telling us that
the truth of Islam has faded in time? If Islam is true how can such thing
happen? This is not logical. If the perceived evidence of the truth of
Islam has disappeared, it is because it was never truth. If we adhere to
the law of logics, we should only conclude that because truth is emerging
falsehood is vanishing. That is why what the ignorant people of the 7th
century Arabia thought to be true, does not appear to us as truth anymore.
We are more intelligent than those barbarians. Those ignorant people had
no problem accepting a God that orders robbery, assassination and rape.
Now we know no real God would send a fiend like Muhammad to guide mankind.
That is against intelligence and commonsense. The messenger of God must be
flawless. Muhammad was evil in the true sense of the word. I do not believe
in Jesus but I can't denounce him as evil because he was not. That
is why Islam seems false to us and it didn’t to those savages. They were
barbarians and ignorant and we are intelligent and civilized.
Anyway, if the evidence of the truth of Islam has evaporated, as you claim
we can’t be held responsible for rejecting it. God gave us intelligence
to use it. Once we use our intelligence we see that Islam is nothing but a
satanic cult. A just God would not punish us for rejecting something
that is illogical and seems to be evil.

Now,
let us be honest Dr. Zaheer and Mr. Ghamidi. Do you have any proof that
Muhammad was a prophet of God or the proof is lost? It’s either one or
the other. You made both these contradictory claims, as if you want to
have have your cake and eat it too. If you have the proof, show it to us
without further ado and if the proof is lost then admit that there is no
proof and do not make such claims and admit that your faith is subjective.

Had
the divine law of worldly punishment for the disbelievers of the
messengers not been implemented at the time of the prophet, it would have
meant that He was inconsistent in dealing with the nations who receive the
message from His messengers directly. God has always been consistent in
treating the enemies of His messengers. It is only He who can decide to
take life. He sometimes does it through natural calamities and on other
occasions through humans

Which
God are you talking about? That is not the God that Jesus or Zoroaster
talked about. In fact Allah is completely inconsistent with the God of
Christianity. Jesus said turn the other cheek and Allah says “retaliation is prescribed for
you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for
the slave, and the female for the female.” (Q.2:178)In other words, if someone kills your slave, you are allowed
to kill his slave and if someone kills your son or daughter, you can kill
his son or daughter. What can be more stupid than this? Even Muslims who
blindly follow everything Muhammad said do not practice this insane
injunction. When a prostitute was brought to Jesus, he said let the one
who has not committed sin throw the first stone while in a similar incident
Muhammad urged the Jews who had abandoned the barbaric practice of stoning
to stone a woman accused of adultery. Jesus sat with sinners, ate with
them and befriended with them and Muhammad said the unbelievers are filthy
(najes) do not associate with them. Jesus said forgive the sins of others
so yours can be forgiven in heaven and Muhammad was utterly incapable of
forgiving people who had done nothing but mock him. Because Allah is incompatible
with the God of Jesus we must not accept him.

So
either Muhammad was lying or Jesus was a liar. Their messages are
incompatible and their gods are different. You don’t have to be a rocket
scientist to know which one of the two was lying. Muhammad said that Jesus
was a messenger of God. If he was not, then Muhammad has said a lie and
therefore he can’t be a messenger of God. If Jesus was a messenger of
God, Muhammad can't be because these two men stand in opposite poles. One
is the personification of everything that is divine and the other is the
representation of everything that is demonic and evil. Furthermore Jesus
warned people of false prophets and he even gave a clue to detect them. He
said you would recognize them by their fruits. Look at the fruits of
Islam. I think it is enough evidence to conclude that Muhammad was a false
prophet. The fruits of Islam are ignorance, bigotry, fanaticism,
intolerance, violence, misogyny, discrimination, terrorism, dictatorship,
wars, poverty and misery.

However,
unless we have a direct sanction from God, we humans can’t do it on our
own. Since the termination of the process of revelation, nobody has a
sanction to kill anyone anymore except if the state awards capital
punishment for killing or causing mischief on the land.

The
terrorists think they have direct sanction to do what they do and they are
right. In no place in the Qur'an it says Jihad must stop after the death
of Muhammad or at any other time. Jihad must continue until the entire
world becomes Dar al Salam. However, since Muslims are divided and each
group denounces others and calls them heretics, if they conquer the world
they will start killing one another on a massive scale. Islam is a cult of
terror and murder. Dr. Ghamidi himself has been the target of Islamic
assassination and at the same time he prescribes death for unbelievers and
apostates. As long as you are Muslims, and follow a terrorist mad man you
do what he did and you can’t be called tolerant. It makes no difference
which school of thought or sect one belongs to or how one interprets the
Qur'an. All the Muslims believe in the same book of terror and follow the
examples set by the same chief terrorist. The difference between the
Muslims is in their flavor. In essence they are all made of the same
substance and have the same characteristics. You have been honest enough
to show us what a moderate Muslim means. If you are the example of a
moderate Muslim Islam is dangerous and it must be eradicated.

Killing
people for what they believe or don’t believe is not something the
civilized world can tolerate. You think your understanding of the truth is
perfect and so dose everyone else. If we each start killing each other
because our truths are different what will become of this world? How can a
real God say such a stupid thing? Humans are fallible. People genuinely
and with all good intentions make mistake and interpret things, including
books claimed to be words of God, in different ways. If each one of us
thinks that he has divine sanction to kill those who disagree with what we
think is truth then everyone should start killing everyone else.

Assuming Satan wanted to
destroy mankind. What better way could he devise than sending someone as
the messenger of God who would tell people to kill those who do not
believe?

That
brings me to the question of the rewards and punishments immediately after
death. You have advertised quite strongly in your website that I am shying
away from answering it. I apologize for missing it out completely. The
mention of people getting fed after death is of course not in the material
sense. The word ‘rizq’ in Arabic is used, as indeed it has been done
in the Qur’an, to mean the source that enables you to sustain and grow
whether materially, intellectually, or spiritually. Those who are living
at the time of messengers have the message communicated to them most
clearly and therefore their accountability is already completed in this
world. They thus get rewards and punishments for their performance
immediately after death. However, such rewards and punishments are given
in a non-material form after death and they will take a physical form
after the Day of Judgment. For instance, the Qur’an mentions about a
believer at the time of Moses, who was threatened by Pharaoh of dire
consequences thus: “So God rescued him from their evil designs and
Pharaoh and his companions were engulfed by a severe punishment: (It is)
the fire they are brought before every morning and evening; and on the day
when judgment would take place (it would be said): Enter (O Pharaoh and)
his companions an even more severe punishment.” (40:45-46)

After
realizing that I am not going to give up, you finally came up with this
answer. Is this response supported by any other verse in the Qur'an or any
hadith? This is not a minor statement but a major difference between those
who lived at the time of Muhammad and the rest of mankind. It basically
shows that God has a two tier system, of which we were not aware
yet. If this answer is true and as you say, the companions of
Muhammad, who had received his direct message, had the added advantage of
surviving in the form of spirit while the rest of mankind would disappear
to only rise at the Last Day, this would have been trumpeted in various
verses and huge discussions would have been dedicated to it. Nothing of
that exists in the entire Islamic literature and the Ulama who have even
discussed in detail with which foot one has to enter the toilet, on which
side of the body one has to place most of his weight during defecation and
how many rocks one has to use for cleaning purposes after responding to
the call of the nature, have been uncharacteristically silent on this very
important subject. Can you tell us why? I will tell you why. It’s
because such a thing does not exist in Islam. You just made it up. What
else could you say in the face of this obvious discrepancy within the Qur'an?

According
to Islam the archangel Israfil will sound a
horn sending out a "blast of truth".Muslim apologist, John Esposito, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam
(Oxford University Press. ISBN
0-19-512558-4, p.264 2003) says that according to traditions,
Muhammad will be the first to be brought back to life.

Will
you please explain how can the companions of Muhammad enter in a spiritual
state of existence until the Last Day when he himself doesn’t? And if
Esposito is wrong, can you show us a few hadith or Quranic verses to
corroborate your claim?

What
about the punishment of the grave? How do you explain this?

Ibn
Abbas narrated: The Prophet once passed by two graves and said,
"These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid).
One of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine, while
the other used to go about with calumnies(to make enmity between
friends)." The Prophet then took a green leaf of a date-palm tree,
split it into (pieces) and fixed one on each grave. They said, "O
Allah's Apostle! Why have you done so?" He replied, "I hope that
their punishment might be lessened till these (the pieces of the leaf)
become dry." (See the foot-note of Hadith 215)
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 217

If there is no
consciousness after death until the Last Day, how can corpses in the grave
be punished? This hadith is reported in several places. Another version of
it says that Muhammad actually heard the voices of two humans who were
being tortured in their graves. [BukhariVolume 8, Book
73, Number 81].Shall
we believe in the hallucinations of this mad man?

You
have mentioned that I am no different from Osama bin Laden. The difference
between me and Osama is that while I believe that the message of Islam is
extremely tolerant, as demonstrated by the verses referred to above and
many more, he has mistaken the passages that were meant for the times of
the messengers alone to be applicable to all non-Muslims of the world.

The only
difference is the way you interpret the Qur'an. Can you convince bin Laden
or any Muslim that your interpretation is the right one and theirs is not?
I think bin Laden’s interpretation is the correct one. Furthermore, both
of you believe that unbelievers do not deserve to live in this world and
that along with the apostates. they should be killed. I honestly do not
see much difference between your position and his. All Muslims,
irrespective of how they interpret the Qur'an, are victims of a lie. The Qur'an
is a very confused book, but not when it comes to killing. The message ofhate and violence in the Qur'an is loud and clear.

I
believe Osama belongs to the category of people who when they make up
their mind about something they are not prepared to change it.

What
about you? Are you capable of changing your mind? I believe you are. But
you are not showing it in public. Of course you can’t do that and I am
not going to press you to do it. I leave that to you and your conscience.
At the end you must answer to your creator.

Faith blinds, I hope this is not true in your case.

One
friend wrote and said he had communicated with you and you were confident
that that you are winning this debate. In that case my I ask to please
publish it in your site so everyone in Pakistan can see how you came out
victorious? If you don't I am afraid that this friend will start thinking
that you were bluffing and that you have serious doubts about your self
declared victory.

When
they engage in a dialogue with others, they are not even listening;
instead, they are preparing their rebuttals against it. All such people,
whether Muslims or non-Muslims, are condemned by the Qur’an: “You
think they are listening to you even though they are not… it is equal
whether you invite them or not….” It is this attitude which to me is
the most dangerous: Those who pose as if they are engaging in an open
dialogue even though they have made a firm commitment that they are not
going to accept anything against what they have already decided. I find
this attitude more disgusting than anything else. It is this sick mind
that is the cause of most woes of our world.

Haven't
you made your mind already? Isn’t this what all believers do? I have
made my mind because I have not seen the evidence of the truth of Islam.
On the contrary, I have plenty of evidence against it. However, should you
give one evidence in support of Islam, I will acknowledge it and agree
with you. Will you please give us one proof to back your claim that Islam
is true? As long as you have not given a single proof you can’t pass
judgments saying I am not listening or it makes no difference whether you
give the proof or not. First you have to present your proof and if I can't
refute it and still deny it, then you can pass those judgments.

You
have accused that the Qur’an has plagiarized the Bible. I am sure you
haven’t read the two books carefully or you wouldn’t have made that
statement. The Qur’an states some of the things mentioned in the Bible
more clearly and more convincingly. It points out the mistakes in the
Bible; and it also confirms certain aspects of the Bible as correct and
authentic. Moreover, it makes an emphatic claim that the arrival of
prophet Muhammad was clearly prophesied in the earlier books.

No,
Dear Dr. Zaheer. The Qur'an does not mention anything that is in the Bible
more clearly. It simply alludes to those stories summarily as if realizing
that its audience is already familiar with them and therefore there is no
need to explain them in detail. If one has not studied the Bible and has
never heard of Job, Noah, Abraham or Moses, one cannot understand the
Quran. However, sometimes there are discrepancies between the stories of
the Bible and the allusions made to them in the Qur'an. This is due to the
fact that Muhammad was an illiterate man with little knowledge. He relied
on his memory and hearsay to rehash those stories. For example, he thought
that Marry the mother of Christ, is part of trinity. At no time this has
been the case. However, seeing the reverence that the Christians had for
Marry made him come to this erroneous conclusion.In another place he confuses Marry
the Mother of Jesus (Maryam in Arabic) with Miriam the sister of Moses and
Aaron (also Maryam in Arabic). When
those who knew the Bible caught his errors he lost his temper and became
angry, lashing out at them he said the Bible is mistaken. This is
consistent with his narcissistic personality disorder and megalomania. His
gigantic ego would not allow him to admit that he had been wrong and
instead of apologizing he pulled out his sock puppet Allah out of his
sleeve to support him.

Tabari
tells us that a group of Jews went to Muhammad and asked him about the
creation. He told them

"God
created the Earth on Sunday and Monday. Then he created the mountains on
Tuesday. On Wednesday he created the cities, the vegetation, the rivers,
and every development and ruin. [This is word-by-word translation.
God created the cities and even the ruins before he created Adam] On
Thursday he created the skies and the angels, which lasted to three hours
before the end of Friday. Then during the first hour of the remainder of
Friday he created ajals, the times of the deaths [I assume it means
he established the time of the death of humans]. In
the next hour he created the diseases [Yep that is exactly what it
says. He created the diseases even before he created Adam]
and in the third hour he created Adam. The Jews said; if youhad said that God rested on Saturday we knew you were telling the
truth. The Messenger of Allah became angry and Allah revealed the verse (46.33):
“Have they not considered that Allah, Who created the heavens and the
earth and was not tired by their creation?” [Tabari Vol I Page 30
Persian translation]

The
fact that both the Bible and the Qur'an are books of absurdity and any
sane person reading these fables of creation can see they are
unscientific, is another subject. The point that I want to make is that
Muhammad often made errors when plagiarizing from the Bible. He was not a
scholar but a very ignorant man, and he got angry if someone pointed his
mistakes out.

I
have a theory to explain why people get angry when they are engaged in a
debate. When you have a response to what the other person is saying or you
are prepared to admit that you could be wrong, you wouldn’t ever get
angry. However, if you don’t have a genuine response to the other
person’s points and you don’t even want to admit that you are wrong,
you lose your temper. A normal, decent person is always polite.

Khalid Zaheer

(Words: 1138)

Thank
you for your explanation. I could not agree more. That is exactly what I
thought when I read the above story of Muhammad reported by Tabari. Do you
still want to follow an indecent and impolite man?